Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Probing small-scale power spectrum with gravitational-wave diffractive lensing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read GW lensing ties each frequency to one dark-matter scale

desk verdict Strong core result on the k-f mapping, but the PBH headline sensitivity rests on an unspecified interpolation exactly where the two simulation methods disagree. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14904 v2 pith:ZI3ZXNSC submitted 2025-01-24 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Sungjung Kim , Han Gil Choi , Sunghoon Jung This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords gravitational-wavelensingdiffractivematterpowerspectrumprimordialblackholesaxionminihalosFresnelscaleEinsteinTelescopeDECIGO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the frequency-dependent diffractive lensing of gravitational waves on dark-matter structures can directly probe the matter power spectrum at subgalactic scales. In an ensemble of many weakly lensed events, the variance of the lensing amplitude per logarithmic frequency is dominated by the power spectrum at a single effective wavenumber, $\bar{k}_F(f) = 5.06 \times 10^6\, \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\,(\chi_s/\mathrm{Gpc})^{-1/2}(f/\mathrm{Hz})^{1/2}$. Because a chirping waveform sweeps through frequencies, each event samples a range of scales, and combining many events yields access to $k = 10^5 \sim 10^8\, \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. Five years of Einstein Telescope and DECIGO data could measure $P(k)$ down to $10^{-16}$--$10^{-14}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3$, constrain primordial black hole abundances to $f_{\mathrm{PBH}} \sim 10^{-6}$, and probe QCD axion minihalos over a wide mass range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (2.3), the three-dimensional path-integral expression for the reduced lensing amplification $\eta(f)$ under the Born approximation, which incorporates both multi-lensing and frequency-dependent diffractive lensing. Its statistical moments reduce to two kernels, $G_0$ and $G_1$: $G_1$, which governs $\mathrm{Var}(d\eta/d\ln f)$, behaves approximately like a delta function in $\ln k$ at $\bar{k}_F(f)$, the inverse Fresnel radius evaluated at $\chi_l=\chi_s/2$. The Fresnel number $N_F$, defined as the total number of lenses inside the Fresnel volume across all events, sets the regime where the central limit theorem makes the log-likelihood Gaussian. Together these convert a complicated three-dimensional integral into a single-scale power-spectrum measurement.

What would settle it

Simulate Poisson-distributed point lenses with the same shot-noise power $P(k)$ but different lens masses, as in the paper's Fig. 3, and compute $\mathrm{Var}(d\eta/d\ln f)$ in the $N_F>1$ regime: if the variance depends on lens mass rather than following $\bar{k}_F^2P(\bar{k}_F)$, the single-scale mapping is falsified. Observational consistency can also be checked with early Einstein Telescope data in a regime where $N_F$ is near 1, since a markedly non-Gaussian lensing log-likelihood despite many events would contradict the central-limit claim behind the variance-based sensitivity formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a mapping between gravitational-wave frequency and matter scale. For multi-lensing, meaning all lenses along the line of sight rather than a single lens plane, the variance of the logarithmic frequency derivative of the lensing amplification satisfies $\mathrm{Var}(d\eta/d\ln f) \simeq 2.97\times10^{-9}\,(\chi_s/\mathrm{Gpc})^3\,(\bar{k}_F^2 P(\bar{k}_F)/1\,\mathrm{Mpc})$, with $\bar{k}_F(f) = 5.06\times10^6\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\,(\chi_s/\mathrm{Gpc})^{-1/2}(f/\mathrm{Hz})^{1/2}$. Each frequency $f$ effectively reads off $k^2P(k)$ at one scale, the Fresnel scale evaluated at the midpoint between source and observer. The paper establishes this through analytic kernels $G_0$ and $G_1$, which become sharply peaked at $k=\bar{k}_F$, and validates it with two Monte-Carlo methods: Gaussian random potentials and random spatial distributions of point lenses. It introduces the Fresnel number $N_F$, the number of lenses inside the Fresnel volume summed over all events, as the controlling parameter: for $N_F \gg 1$ the total log-likelihood is Gaussian and the variance alone determines sensitivity, while for $N_F \lesssim 1$ rare strong-lensing events dominate and the sensitivity reduces to the single-lens projection.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation treats the gravitational potential as a Gaussian random field and uses the Born approximation, so the lensing observable is fully characterized by its variance; the paper notes that post-Born corrections become significant only outside its working frequency and mass range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Five years of Einstein Telescope data would probe $k = 10^6$ to $10^8\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and DECIGO data would probe $k = 10^5$ to $10^7\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, with peak power-spectrum sensitivities around $P(k) \sim 10^{-16}$ and $10^{-14}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^3$.
  • Primordial black hole abundance could be constrained down to $f_{\mathrm{PBH}} \sim 10^{-6}$ for masses around one solar mass, improving on projections based on single strong-lensing events.
  • For QCD axion minihalos, Einstein Telescope would be sensitive to axion masses $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{eV}$ and DECIGO to $10^{-12}$ to $10^{-4}\,\mathrm{eV}$, assuming all axions are in minihalos.
  • The model-independent kernels $\delta P(k)$ allow any given power spectrum to be convolved with the sensitivity, so future dark-matter models can be tested without rerunning the full lensing simulation.
  • The Fresnel number delineates three regimes: Gaussian multi-lensing dominated by many sub-critical events, rare strong-lensing events, and genuine multi-lens events where the first few lenses matter.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Lower-frequency detectors, such as LISA, could push the probe to larger subgalactic scales by tracking year-long signals, a direction the paper leaves for future work.
  • The $N_F$ criterion could be tested with existing data: if the lensing log-likelihood distribution stays non-Gaussian for a sample where $N_F<1$, the variance-based sensitivity projection would not apply.
  • Because the observable tracks $k^2P(k)$, the probe is especially sensitive to the high-$k$ cutoff of models like axion minihalos; a detection could localize that cutoff, while a null result would bound the dark-matter free-streaming scale.
  • The $\delta P(k)$ kernels imply a coarse tomographic reconstruction: a chirp's full frequency sweep, combined over an ensemble, could recover a rough shape of $P(k)$ rather than a single integrated bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formalism for probing small-scale matter power spectra through the statistical (multi-)lensing of gravitational waves, focusing on the frequency-dependent diffractive lensing amplitude. It derives an approximate relation between GW frequency f and a characteristic comoving wavenumber kbar_F(f) (Eq. 2.6), arguing that the variance of the logarithmic frequency derivative of the lensing amplification is dominated by P(k) at this single scale (Eqs. 2.9–2.11). The authors validate their analytic variance formulas with two Monte-Carlo methods: a Gaussian random potential field (Method 1) and a random spatial distribution of point lenses (Method 2), and they introduce a 'Fresnel number' N_F to delineate the regime where the central limit theorem makes the log-likelihood Gaussian and the variance sufficient. They then forecast 5-year Einstein Telescope and DECIGO sensitivities to PBH abundances (down to f_PBH ~ 1e-6 for M_PBH ~ 1 Msun), QCD axion minihalos, and provide model-independent kernels deltaP(k).

Significance. If the results hold, this is a genuinely novel and potentially powerful probe of subgalactic-scale dark matter structure, offering a semi-direct mapping between GW frequency and matter power spectrum scale. The core analytic derivation (Eqs. 2.8–2.11) is internally consistent and is backed by two independent Monte-Carlo implementations in the regime where they agree (N_F >> 1). The paper also provides useful model-independent kernels deltaP(k) and clearly delineates the statistical regimes via the Fresnel number. The claimed sensitivities would be competitive with or exceed other proposed small-scale probes in the k = 1e5–1e8 Mpc^-1 range, making this a significant contribution if the caveats below are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 6; Eq. (3.11)] The headline PBH sensitivity curves (red solid lines in Fig. 6) are described only as 'interpolated between Method 1 and 2', with no interpolation formula, weighting, or uncertainty. The point of best sensitivity for ET (M_PBH ~ 1 Msun, f_PBH ~ 1e-6) lies near N_F ~ 1, exactly the transition where Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 show disagreement: Method 2 produces a long-tailed ln Lambda_i distribution while Method 1 is Gaussian. Since Eq. (3.11) reduces the sensitivity to Var(eta') and hence to kbar_F^2 P(kbar_F) only when the CLT/Gaussianity holds, the variance-to-power-spectrum mapping is not established precisely at the headline claim. This makes the central quantitative result not reproducible from the paper as written. Please provide the explicit interpolation prescription (e.g., a smooth transition as a function of N_F) and quantify the systematic uncertainty in f_PBH arising from the interpolation choice.
  2. [Sec. 4.1; Sec. 5.1] The analysis assumes the Born approximation throughout (Eq. 2.3 and Sec. 4.1). The paper states that post-Born corrections 'become prominent only at very high frequencies and for low-mass PBHs, conditions that lie practically outside the scope of this study.' However, the sensitivity forecasts in Fig. 6 explicitly cover M_PBH down to 1e-3 Msun, and the high-frequency end (f ~ 1e2–1e3 Hz) is part of the claimed ET/DECIGO reach. No quantitative estimate of the post-Born correction is given for these regimes, so the validity of the variance mapping in the low-mass/high-frequency corner is not supported. Please either quantify the post-Born contribution in the regions where the sensitivity lines are drawn, or explicitly mark the range of validity of the Born-based forecasts.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (5.4)] The model-independent kernels deltaP(k) in Fig. 10 are computed using Method 1 only, which assumes Gaussian potential fluctuations and N_F >> 1. The text notes this (Sec. 5.3), but the abstract and introduction present deltaP(k) as a model-independent measurement kernel without foregrounding this assumption. Since the PBH shot-noise power spectrum is non-Gaussian at low N_F, applying deltaP(k) to PBH-like models outside the Gaussian regime would be invalid. Please state more prominently that deltaP(k) applies to Gaussian/N_F >> 1 cases, and clarify in Sec. 5.3 how a non-Gaussian model should be treated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.2)] The definition of N_F: 'Number of lenses within the Fresnel volume' is informal for a continuous mass distribution; please define the Fresnel volume precisely (using r_F(f0, chi_s/2)?, integrating over chi_l?) and state how the sum over events is normalized.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'Method 1 always predicts Gaussian distributions', but the figure plots variances, not distributions; the Gaussianity is a property of the generated field, not shown in this figure. Please rephrase.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The text says 'in the middle region with 1 ≲ N_F ≲ N_e, the result of Method 2 agrees with that of Method 1', but Fig. 3 shows agreement only for N_F appreciably above 1; consider rewording to 'N_F >> 1' or quantify the onset of agreement.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The abstract states a k range of 1e5–1e8 Mpc^-1 while Sec. 6 says ET covers 1e6–1e8 and DECIGO 1e5–1e7 Mpc^-1; please reconcile these numbers in the abstract.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.15)] The expression G1 ~ ln[Delta ln f^{-1/2}] delta(ln k - ln kbar_F) is notationally confusing; the logarithmic factor should be written explicitly with parentheses and its derivation from Eq. (A.14) clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the variance-to-power-spectrum mapping is a forward derivation from the lensing path integral, and the cited prior work is used as a building block rather than as the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central relation, Eq. (2.11), is obtained by forward propagation from the definition of the lensing amplification in Eq. (2.3): the two-point correlator of the gravitational potential is inserted, the Limber approximation is applied, and the resulting kernel G1 is evaluated and shown to peak near k = kbar_F(f). This is a standard signal calculation, not a fitting of P(k) to the claimed sensitivity. The relation kbar_F(f) = k_F(f, chi_s/2) is derived in Appendix A from the stationary-phase structure of the Fresnel integrals, not assumed as the conclusion. The likelihood-to-variance step Eq. (3.11) uses the matched-filter expansion ln Lambda ~ (eta' h0 | eta' h0), cited to the authors' earlier paper [35]; that citation is a published derivation of the same approximation and is used as a technical building block, not as the uniqueness argument or as the target result of the present paper. The Fresnel-number criterion NF is introduced by definition in Eq. (3.2) and then tested against the two Monte Carlo methods; it is not a fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction. The final PBH sensitivity relies on an interpolation between Method 1 and Method 2 with no explicit formula, which is a reproducibility limitation, not a circular reduction: the two methods are independent simulations, and the interpolation is a post-processing choice rather than an input to the derivation. The paper also benchmarks against external single-lensing projections and other probes, so the sensitivity claims have independent content. No load-bearing step was found in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, and no self-citation chain is used to forbid alternatives or to justify the central claim. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmological approximations (Limber, Born, weak-field wave optics), the assumption that the potential field is Gaussian or that the central limit theorem restores Gaussianity, and simplified models for PBH shot noise and axion minihalos. The paper's own new ingredients are the approximate delta-function kernel for the variance and the Fresnel number criterion, both validated numerically within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Event selection thresholds = SNR_i > 8 and ln Lambda_i^0 >= ln Lambda_i^2
    Hand-chosen cuts in Sec. 3 (Eq. 3.9) to ensure detectable gravitational-wave signals and validity of the O(n^2) expansion of the likelihood. They affect the projected sensitivity curves but not the central f-k mapping.
  • Frequency derivative width Delta ln f = O(1), e.g., 0.28 in Fig. 3
    The observable eta' = Delta eta / Delta ln f is defined over a finite log-frequency bin. The width affects the G1 kernel's sharpness (Fig. 2 and Appendix A) but not the peak scale k_bar_F(f).
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Limber approximation: integral d k_parallel / (2 pi) e^{i k_parallel (chi - chi')} f(k) approximately delta(chi - chi') f(k_perp)
    Used in Eq. (2.8) to reduce the 3D integral to a 2D power spectrum integral. Standard in cosmological lensing, valid when fluctuations vary slowly along the line of sight.
  • domain assumption Born approximation and weak-field scattering: lensing amplification is linear in the gravitational potential and higher-order scattering is neglected
    Invoked in Sec. 3 around Eq. (3.10) and Sec. 4.1. Together with <eta'> = 0, this makes the likelihood mean proportional to Var(eta'). The paper states post-Born corrections are outside its scope.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential is a Gaussian random field with power spectrum P(k) fully characterizing its statistics (Method 1)
    Eq. (4.1) assumes zero higher-order moments. This is used for axion minihalos and for PBHs in the N_F >= 1 regime; the paper argues the central limit theorem restores Gaussianity there.
  • domain assumption PBH and matter lenses are Poisson-distributed, with a two-point function given by the shot-noise power P_PBH = f_PBH^2 / n_PBH
    Eq. (5.1). Ignores PBH clustering and isocurvature structure, which the paper states do not dominate in the k = 10^5 to 10^8 Mpc^-1 range considered.
  • domain assumption Axion minihalos are described by a white-noise isocurvature power spectrum with a sharp cutoff at k0, and all axions are in monochromatic minihalos of mass M0
    Eq. (5.2) and Sec. 5.2. This is a simplified model from [24,52]; the paper says realistic mass functions can be folded in later.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective kernel G1 is sharply peaked at k approximately k_bar_F, i.e., G1 ~ delta(ln k - ln k_bar_F) for Delta ln f ~ O(1)
    Derived in Appendix A (Eqs. A.12 to A.15) using a saddle-point approximation. This is the load-bearing approximation that converts the convolution over k into a direct measurement at a single scale.
  • ad hoc to paper The central limit theorem applies to the sum of individual event log-likelihoods when the Fresnel number N_F >= 1
    Proposed in Sec. 3 and validated by Monte-Carlo comparisons in Fig. 3. This defines when the variance-only likelihood estimate (Eq. 3.11) is valid.
  • domain assumption Source population assumptions: binary black holes uniformly distributed in comoving volume up to z = 10, merger rate R0 = 28.3 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, mass distribution from [47]
    Sec. 4.2. These set the event count and signal-to-noise distribution; systematic uncertainties in the population directly shift the sensitivity projections.
invented entities (1)
  • Fresnel number N_F
    purpose: Quantifies the effective number of lenses within the Fresnel volume summed over events; used as a criterion for Gaussianity of the total log-likelihood and for the validity of the variance-based estimate.
    Introduced in Sec. 3, Eq. (3.2). It is a diagnostic construct, not a physical substance; its usefulness is demonstrated by Monte-Carlo agreement in Fig. 3, but it has no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing small-scale power spectrum with gravitational-wave diffractive lensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZI3ZXNSC

@misc{pith2026250114904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing small-scale power spectrum with gravitational-wave diffractive lensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZI3ZXNSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14904}
}
abstract

We develop a novel way to probe subgalactic-scale matter distribution with diffractive lensing on gravitational waves. Five-year observations from Einstein Telescope and DECIGO are expected to probe $k= 10^5\sim 10^8 \,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ down to $P(k) = 10^{-16} \sim 10^{-14} \,{\rm Mpc}^3$ level. These results can be interpreted in terms of primordial black holes in the range $M_{\rm PBH} \gtrsim 10^{-3}M_\odot$ down to $f_{\rm PBH} = 10^{-6}$ level, or QCD axion minihalos in the range $m_a = 10^{-3} \sim 10^{-12} \,{\rm eV}$. A key result of the paper is the approximate relation between the scale $k$ and the gravitational wave frequency $f$, derived in an ensemble of `multi-lensing' events. This relation enables direct measurement of the power spectrum at specific scales, with sensitivities characterized by model-independent kernels $\delta P(k)$. Additionally, we delineate the statistical properties of `multi-lensing' based on the `Fresnel number' $N_F$. When $N_F \gtrsim {\cal O}(1)$, the statistical significance can be approximately calculated by Variance of lensing effects, which is directly related to the power spectrum among other moments of matter distribution.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Halometry from Astrometry,

    K. Van Tilburg, A. M. Taki and N. Weiner, “Halometry from Astrometry,” JCAP 07 (2018), 041 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/041 [arXiv:1804.01991 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Constraining the primordial curvature perturbation using dark matter substructure

    S. Ando, N. Hiroshima and K. Ishiwata, “Constraining the primordial curvature perturbation using dark matter substructure,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.10, 103014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103014 [arXiv:2207.05747 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Astrometric Weak Lensing with Gaia DR3 and Future Catalogs: Searches for Dark Matter Substructure

    C. Mondino, A. Tsantilas, A. M. Taki, K. Van Tilburg and N. Weiner, “Astrometric weak lensing with Gaia DR3 and future catalogues: searches for dark matter substructure,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531 (2024) no.1, 632-648 doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1017 [arXiv:2308.12330 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 28 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Constraints on dark matter from dynamical heating of stars in ultrafaint dwarfs. I. MACHOs and primordial black holes,

    P. W. Graham and H. Ramani, “Constraints on dark matter from dynamical heating of stars in ultrafaint dwarfs. I. MACHOs and primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.7, 075011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.075011 [arXiv:2311.07654 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Constraints on dark matter from dynamical heating of stars in ultrafaint dwarfs. II. Substructure and the primordial power spectrum,

    P. W. Graham and H. Ramani, “Constraints on dark matter from dynamical heating of stars in ultrafaint dwarfs. II. Substructure and the primordial power spectrum,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.7, 075012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.075012 [arXiv:2404.01378 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Microlensing of X-ray Pulsars: a Method to Detect Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter,

    Y. Bai and N. Orlofsky, “Microlensing of X-ray Pulsars: a Method to Detect Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.12, 123019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123019 [arXiv:1812.01427 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Pulsar Timing Probes of Primordial Black Holes and Subhalos,

    J. A. Dror, H. Ramani, T. Trickle and K. M. Zurek, “Pulsar Timing Probes of Primordial Black Holes and Subhalos,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.2, 023003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023003 [arXiv:1901.04490 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Probing Small-Scale Power Spectra with Pulsar Timing Arrays,

    V. S. H. Lee, A. Mitridate, T. Trickle and K. M. Zurek, “Probing Small-Scale Power Spectra with Pulsar Timing Arrays,” JHEP 06 (2021), 028 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)028 [arXiv:2012.09857 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Limits on stellar-mass compact objects as dark matter from gravitational lensing of type Ia supernovae,

    M. Zumalacarregui and U. Seljak, “Limits on stellar-mass compact objects as dark matter from gravitational lensing of type Ia supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no.14, 141101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.141101 [arXiv:1712.02240 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lensing of Fast Radio Bursts as a Probe of Compact Dark Matter,

    J. B. Mu˜ noz, E. D. Kovetz, L. Dai and M. Kamionkowski, “Lensing of Fast Radio Bursts as a Probe of Compact Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) no.9, 091301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091301 [arXiv:1605.00008 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov and W. Xue, JCAP 12 (2018), 005 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/005 [arXiv:1807.11495 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gamma-ray burst lensing parallax: Closing the primordial black hole dark matter mass window,

    S. Jung and T. Kim, “Gamma-ray burst lensing parallax: Closing the primordial black hole dark matter mass window,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2 (2020) no.1, 013113 doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013113 [arXiv:1908.00078 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Detecting dark matter substructures on small scales with fast radio bursts,

    H. Xiao, L. Dai and M. McQuinn, “Detecting dark matter substructures on small scales with fast radio bursts,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.2, 023516 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023516 [arXiv:2401.08862 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Femtolensing of gamma-ray bursters,

    A. Gould, “Femtolensing of gamma-ray bursters,” Astrophys. J. 386, L5 (1992) doi:10.1086/186279

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    Probing for MACHOs of mass 10 −15-solar-mass - 10−7-solar-mass with gamma-ray burst parallax spacecraft,

    R. J. Nemiroff and A. Gould, “Probing for MACHOs of mass 10 −15-solar-mass - 10−7-solar-mass with gamma-ray burst parallax spacecraft,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 452 (1995), L111 doi:10.1086/309722 [arXiv:astro-ph/9505019 [astro-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Limits on the cosmological abundance of supermassive compact objects from a millilensing search – 29 – in gamma-ray burst data,

    R. J. Nemiroff, G. F. Marani, J. P. Norris and J. T. Bonnell, “Limits on the cosmological abundance of supermassive compact objects from a millilensing search – 29 – in gamma-ray burst data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 580 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.580 [astro-ph/0101488]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,

    H. Niikura et al., “Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with Subaru/HSC Andromeda observations,” Nat. Astron. 3, no. 6, 524 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0723-1 [arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events,

    H. Niikura, M. Takada, S. Yokoyama, T. Sumi and S. Masaki, “Constraints on Earth-mass primordial black holes from OGLE 5-year microlensing events,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 8, 083503 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083503 [arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    New Light on Dark Extended Lenses with the Roman Space Telescope,

    W. DeRocco, N. Smyth and V. Takhistov, “New Light on Dark Extended Lenses with the Roman Space Telescope,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 965 (2024) no.1, L3 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3644 [arXiv:2312.14782 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds,

    P. Tisserand et al. [EROS-2], “Limits on the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic Clouds,” Astron. Astrophys. 469 (2007), 387-404 doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066017 [arXiv:astro-ph/0607207 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Microlensing towards the SMC: a new analysis of OGLE and EROS results,

    S. Calchi Novati, S. Mirzoyan, P. Jetzer and G. Scarpetta, “Microlensing towards the SMC: a new analysis of OGLE and EROS results,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 435 (2013), 1582 doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1402 [arXiv:1308.4281 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Experimental Limits on Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter from the First 2 yr of Kepler Data,

    K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak and M. J. Lehner, “Experimental Limits on Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter from the First 2 yr of Kepler Data,” Astrophys. J. 786, no. 2, 158 (2014) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/158 [arXiv:1307.5798 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Understanding caustic crossings in giant arcs: characteristic scales, event rates, and constraints on compact dark matter,

    M. Oguri, J. M. Diego, N. Kaiser, P. L. Kelly and T. Broadhurst, “Understanding caustic crossings in giant arcs: characteristic scales, event rates, and constraints on compact dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.2, 023518 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023518 [arXiv:1710.00148 [a...

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gravitational Lensing Signatures of Axion Dark Matter Minihalos in Highly Magnified Stars,

    L. Dai and J. Miralda-Escud´ e, “Gravitational Lensing Signatures of Axion Dark Matter Minihalos in Highly Magnified Stars,” Astron. J. 159, no.2, 49 (2020) doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab5e83 [arXiv:1908.01773 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gravitational-Wave Fringes at LIGO: Detecting Compact Dark Matter by Gravitational Lensing,

    S. Jung and C. S. Shin, “Gravitational-Wave Fringes at LIGO: Detecting Compact Dark Matter by Gravitational Lensing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.4, 041103 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.041103 [arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Detecting Lensing-Induced Diffraction in Astrophysical Gravitational Waves,

    L. Dai, S. S. Li, B. Zackay, S. Mao and Y. Lu, “Detecting Lensing-Induced Diffraction in Astrophysical Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.10, 104029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104029 [arXiv:1810.00003 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Probing Dark Low-mass Halos and Primordial Black Holes with Frequency-dependent Gravitational Lensing Dispersions of Gravitational Waves,

    M. Oguri and R. Takahashi, “Probing Dark Low-mass Halos and Primordial Black Holes with Frequency-dependent Gravitational Lensing Dispersions of Gravitational Waves,” Astrophys. J. 901, no.1, 58 (2020) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafab [arXiv:2007.01936 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Coexistence Test of Primordial Black – 30 – Holes and Particle Dark Matter from Diffractive Lensing,

    H. Gil Choi, S. Jung, P. Lu and V. Takhistov, “Coexistence Test of Primordial Black – 30 – Holes and Particle Dark Matter from Diffractive Lensing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.10, 101002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101002 [arXiv:2311.17829 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lens Stochastic Diffraction: A Signature of Compact Structures in Gravitational-Wave Data,

    M. Zumalac´ arregui, “Lens Stochastic Diffraction: A Signature of Compact Structures in Gravitational-Wave Data,” [arXiv:2404.17405 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Search for Lensing Signatures in the Gravitational-Wave Observations from the First Half of LIGO–Virgo’s Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and VIRGO], “Search for Lensing Signatures in the Gravitational-Wave Observations from the First Half of LIGO–Virgo’s Third Observing Run,” Astrophys. J. 923 (2021) no.1, 14 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db [arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Search for Gravitational-lensing Signatures in the Full Third Observing Run of the LIGO–Virgo Network,

    R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, KAGRA and VIRGO], “Search for Gravitational-lensing Signatures in the Full Third Observing Run of the LIGO–Virgo Network,” Astrophys. J. 970 (2024) no.2, 191 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83 [arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries by a point mass lens,

    T. T. Nakamura, “Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries by a point mass lens,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1138 (1998). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1138

    1998 doi

  25. [33]

    Probing the inflaton: Small-scale power spectrum constraints from measurements of the CMB energy spectrum,

    J. Chluba, A. L. Erickcek and I. Ben-Dayan, “Probing the inflaton: Small-scale power spectrum constraints from measurements of the CMB energy spectrum,” Astrophys. J. 758 (2012), 76 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/76 [arXiv:1203.2681 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Beyond subhalos: Probing the collective effect of the Universe’s small-scale structure with gravitational lensing,

    F. Y. Cyr-Racine, C. R. Keeton and L. A. Moustakas, “Beyond subhalos: Probing the collective effect of the Universe’s small-scale structure with gravitational lensing,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.2, 023013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023013 [arXiv:1806.07897 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Small-scale shear: Peeling off diffuse subhalos with gravitational waves,

    H. G. Choi, C. Park and S. Jung, “Small-scale shear: Peeling off diffuse subhalos with gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.6, 063001 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063001 [arXiv:2103.08618 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The dark timbre of gravitational waves,

    J. Urrutia and V. Vaskonen, “The dark timbre of gravitational waves,” [arXiv:2402.16849 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Scattering of gravitational waves by the weak gravitational fields of lens objects,

    R. Takahashi, T. Suyama and S. Michikoshi, “Scattering of gravitational waves by the weak gravitational fields of lens objects,” Astron. Astrophys. 438, L5 (2005) doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200500140 [arXiv:astro-ph/0503343 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Amplitude and phase fluctuations for gravitational waves propagating through inhomogeneous mass distribution in the universe,

    R. Takahashi, “Amplitude and phase fluctuations for gravitational waves propagating through inhomogeneous mass distribution in the universe,” Astrophys. J. 644, 80-85 (2006) doi:10.1086/503323 [arXiv:astro-ph/0511517 [astro-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Solar diffraction of LIGO-band gravitational waves,

    S. Jung and S. Kim, “Solar diffraction of LIGO-band gravitational waves,” JCAP 07, 042 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/042 [arXiv:2210.02649 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Detectability of – 31 – Lensed Gravitational Waves in Matched-Filtering Searches,

    J. C. L. Chan, E. Seo, A. K. Y. Li, H. Fong and J. M. Ezquiaga, “Detectability of – 31 – Lensed Gravitational Waves in Matched-Filtering Searches,” [arXiv:2411.13058 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Weak lensing of gravitational waves in wave optics: Beyond the Born approximation,

    M. Mizuno and T. Suyama, “Weak lensing of gravitational waves in wave optics: Beyond the Born approximation,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.4, 043511 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043511 [arXiv:2210.02062 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and M. Beker, et al. “The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

    Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories,

    S. Hild, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and M. Beker, et al. “Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/09401...

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,

    S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, M. Musha, I. Kawano, J. Yokoyama, T. Tanaka, K. Ioka and T. Akutsu, et al. “Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,” PTEP 2021, no.5, 05A105 (2021) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptab019 [arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A Template bank for gravitational waveforms from coalescing binary black holes. I. Non-spinning binaries,

    P. Ajith, S. Babak, Y. Chen, M. Hewitson, B. Krishnan, A. M. Sintes, J. T. Whelan, B. Bruegmann, P. Diener and N. Dorband, et al. “A Template bank for gravitational waveforms from coalescing binary black holes. I. Non-spinning binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 104017 (2008) [erratum...

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization,

    C. Talbot and E. Thrane, “Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization,” Astrophys. J. 856, no.2, 173 (2018) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c [arXiv:1801.02699 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Primordial black holes as dark matter: The Power spectrum and evaporation of early structures,

    N. Afshordi, P. McDonald and D. N. Spergel, “Primordial black holes as dark matter: The Power spectrum and evaporation of early structures,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 594, L71-L74 (2003) doi:10.1086/378763 [arXiv:astro-ph/0302035 [astro-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Small-scale structure and 21cm fluctuations by primordial black holes,

    J. O. Gong and N. Kitajima, “Small-scale structure and 21cm fluctuations by primordial black holes,” JCAP 08, 017 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/08/017 [arXiv:1704.04132 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies,

    D. Inman and Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, “Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 100, no.8, 083528 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083528 [arXiv:1907.08129 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    AXION MINICLUSTERS,

    C. J. Hogan and M. J. Rees, “AXION MINICLUSTERS,” Phys. Lett. B 205, 228-230 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91655-3 – 32 –

    1988 doi

  44. [52]

    Structure formation and microlensing with axion miniclusters,

    M. Fairbairn, D. J. E. Marsh, J. Quevillon and S. Rozier, “Structure formation and microlensing with axion miniclusters,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.8, 083502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.083502 [arXiv:1707.03310 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 33 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.